ECWFlairfan wrote:
The WCW lineage ended with the Rock the night after SS 2001 when Vince McMahon declared the WCW title gone & the Rock as the World champion. That was the title that was unified with the WWE title then held by Stone Cold Steve Austin at Vengence 2001. So truthfully, Chris Jericho isn't a 2 time WCW champion, he's a 1 time WCW champion, 1 time WWE champion, and a 1 time pre-unification World champion. This all from the Vince McMahon promo the night after SS 2001 when he fired Paul Heyman, Shane, & Stephanie, made Regal the first member of his KMA club...he declared The Rock the WORLD CHAMPION. Look up the promo!!! (Pre-Vengence:

Vince said "will now be known as." Indicating a change in name. He didn't say anything about getting rid of the belt or erasing its lineage.

Big Red Machine wrote:They refused to recognize the title change. Therefore, according to them Rogers was still the champion, (they didn't say "lets make him our new champ" they said "he is still the champ because we don't recognize him losing the belt) and the only things new about the belt are the name and physical belt, but not the lineage. In their eyes, the NWA & Lou Thesz have stolen the real belt, so they have to get a new one.

But in their response they started a new company that recognized Rogers as their World champion, just like ECW did with Shane Douglas.

Big Red Machine wrote:

ECWFlairfan wrote:
The WCW lineage ended with the Rock the night after SS 2001 when Vince McMahon declared the WCW title gone & the Rock as the World champion. That was the title that was unified with the WWE title then held by Stone Cold Steve Austin at Vengence 2001. So truthfully, Chris Jericho isn't a 2 time WCW champion, he's a 1 time WCW champion, 1 time WWE champion, and a 1 time pre-unification World champion. This all from the Vince McMahon promo the night after SS 2001 when he fired Paul Heyman, Shane, & Stephanie, made Regal the first member of his KMA club...he declared The Rock the WORLD CHAMPION. Look up the promo!!! (Pre-Vengence:

Vince said "will now be known as." Indicating a change in name. He didn't say anything about getting rid of the belt or erasing its lineage.

As in new title lineage...

The NWA is part of WWE's history, but the then WWWF broke off from the NWA therefore the title lineage of the WWE is a new one broken off from another one... much like AWA & WCW...

ECWFlairfan wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:They refused to recognize the title change. Therefore, according to them Rogers was still the champion, (they didn't say "lets make him our new champ" they said "he is still the champ because we don't recognize him losing the belt) and the only things new about the belt are the name and physical belt, but not the lineage. In their eyes, the NWA & Lou Thesz have stolen the real belt, so they have to get a new one.

But in their response they started a new company that recognized Rogers as their World champion, just like ECW did with Shane Douglas.

No they didn't They were always an independent company. They just broke away from the conglomerate. McMahon & MOndt didn't fold the WWWF and start it up again (which is what Tod Gordon did). They just broke away from the NWA.

ECWFlairfan wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:

ECWFlairfan wrote:
The WCW lineage ended with the Rock the night after SS 2001 when Vince McMahon declared the WCW title gone & the Rock as the World champion. That was the title that was unified with the WWE title then held by Stone Cold Steve Austin at Vengence 2001. So truthfully, Chris Jericho isn't a 2 time WCW champion, he's a 1 time WCW champion, 1 time WWE champion, and a 1 time pre-unification World champion. This all from the Vince McMahon promo the night after SS 2001 when he fired Paul Heyman, Shane, & Stephanie, made Regal the first member of his KMA club...he declared The Rock the WORLD CHAMPION. Look up the promo!!! (Pre-Vengence:

Vince said "will now be known as." Indicating a change in name. He didn't say anything about getting rid of the belt or erasing its lineage.

As in new title lineage...

The NWA is part of WWE's history, but the then WWWF broke off from the NWA therefore the title lineage of the WWE is a new one broken off from another one... much like AWA & WCW...

Why does a new name suggest a new lineage? Foley, Nash, & Booker T are all still recognized as having had the TV Title in TNA.

You have this all wrong. WWE and the AWA do not consider their titles to be new titles. They considered their world title to be the rightful lineage of the NWA World Title from the time of the break on. Not being part of the NWA doesn't matter. It doesn't change the history or their reasoning.

Big Red Machine wrote:You have this all wrong. WWE and the AWA do not consider their titles to be new titles. They considered their world title to be the rightful lineage of the NWA World Title from the time of the break on. Not being part of the NWA doesn't matter. It doesn't change the history or their reasoning.

Yet Vince McMahon Sr was still helping decide who the NWA World champion was in 1981 (Flair talks about that, look it up)... so if his company's World title is the continuing lineage of the NWA World championship, then 1. why was he still on the board of the NWA & 2. Why doesn't wwe.com include the NWA lineage in BOTH of their top titles??? Sounda like a personal admission to me... (also, whenever anyone talks about the AWA World championship lineage no one mentions anyone holding the title prior to the AWA breaking away?)

ECWFlairfan wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:You have this all wrong. WWE and the AWA do not consider their titles to be new titles. They considered their world title to be the rightful lineage of the NWA World Title from the time of the break on. Not being part of the NWA doesn't matter. It doesn't change the history or their reasoning.

Yet Vince McMahon Sr was still helping decide who the NWA World champion was in 1981 (Flair talks about that, look it up)... so if his company's World title is the continuing lineage of the NWA World championship, then 1. why was he still on the board of the NWA & 2. Why doesn't wwe.com include the NWA lineage in BOTH of their top titles??? Sounda like a personal admission to me... (also, whenever anyone talks about the AWA World championship lineage no one mentions anyone holding the title prior to the AWA breaking away?)

1. because the WWWF rejoined the NWA in 1971, until Vince Jr. pulled out again in 83.

2. They don't mention it for the World Heavyweight Title because they consider that to be a different title.

3. For both the WWE Title and the AWA World Title, they don't mention it because they don't need to. Those belts have (or in the case of the AWA, had) the prestige to stand on their own without needing to remind us of the whole entire title lineage. You can see the same thing in TNA, which is the exact same situation as WWE (the NWA made a decision regarding titles that TNA didn't like, so TNA gave their champs new belts with new names).

Big Red Machine wrote:

3. For both the WWE Title and the AWA World Title, they don't mention it because they don't need to. Those belts have (or in the case of the AWA, had) the prestige to stand on their own without needing to remind us of the whole entire title lineage. You can see the same thing in TNA, which is the exact same situation as WWE (the NWA made a decision regarding titles that TNA didn't like, so TNA gave their champs new belts with new names).

what was said decision the NWA made? I always thought TNA's break from NWA was similar to that of WCW's. I thought TNA was just deciding that since they were so big, it was time to carve their own niche without the NWA's name attached. I remember 'Good Times, Great Memories' was the last time for a while that guys who wrestled for TNA were allowed to wrestle in ROH; that was Aries, Daniels, and Homicide's last match in ROH for a while. I figured it was all about TNA wishing to preserve their roster (also, ROH had announced they'd begin having PPV's that year; I thought TNA didn't want "their" talent being featured on another promotion's PPV), not anything involving the NWA....

furthermore, on wikipedia it states that TNA "abdicted" (left) the NWA in 2004, but the NWA allowed them to continue to use the belts until 2007.

so either the NWA decided in 2007 that they didn't like what TNA was doing with those titles, or TNA made the decision to dissociate themselves from the NWA entirely....

badnewzxl wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:

3. For both the WWE Title and the AWA World Title, they don't mention it because they don't need to. Those belts have (or in the case of the AWA, had) the prestige to stand on their own without needing to remind us of the whole entire title lineage. You can see the same thing in TNA, which is the exact same situation as WWE (the NWA made a decision regarding titles that TNA didn't like, so TNA gave their champs new belts with new names).

what was said decision the NWA made? I always thought TNA's break from NWA was similar to that of WCW's. I thought TNA was just deciding that since they were so big, it was time to carve their own niche without the NWA's name attached. I remember 'Good Times, Great Memories' was the last time for a while that guys who wrestled for TNA were allowed to wrestle in ROH; that was Aries, Daniels, and Homicide's last match in ROH for a while. I figured it was all about TNA wishing to preserve their roster (also, ROH had announced they'd begin having PPV's that year; I thought TNA didn't want "their" talent being featured on another promotion's PPV), not anything involving the NWA....

TNA broke away from the NWA in 2004 because they realized that they didn't need the NWA name (exactly like WCW), but the NWA still let them use the belts because the NWA realized that it needed TNA to stay relevant. The NWA eventually realized that it probably wasn't such a good idea to have a non-member in complete and total control of the booking of their top titles, so, in 2007, they stripped the TNA Champs of their belts. The thing with the ROH happened because ROH got its PPV deal. That had nothing to do with the NWA.

Bottom line here, at least for me, is that if you consider your lineage to be a continuance of another, you list the previous as part of your history... WWE for whatever reason doesn't do this on wwe.com & why they talk about it in their "World title history DVD" is beyond me... if I were the NWA, I would have sued WWE over this & demanded to get all their NWA footage so the NWA could then make their own NWA history series... which as of now they can't... I would also negotiate with TNA to at least share their footage of NWA history...

ECWFlairfan wrote:Bottom line here, at least for me, is that if you consider your lineage to be a continuance of another, you list the previous as part of your history... WWE for whatever reason doesn't do this on wwe.com & why they talk about it in their "World title history DVD" is beyond me... if I were the NWA, I would have sued WWE over this & demanded to get all their NWA footage so the NWA could then make their own NWA history series... which as of now they can't... I would also negotiate with TNA to at least share their footage of NWA history...

I think you're missing the point here.... WWE in some instance do recognise its lineage, and when they have interviews on it, will admit lineages and continuances & renaming of titles. However, in this instance, WWE while recognising its lineage and history, only show its lineage during its WWE days and there's nothing wrong with that.

They've taken a belt, made it their own or a version of or similar... and crown ITS first champion, and as far as they're concerned the first WWE xxx Champion is the first guy WWE books to hold it.

ECWFlairfan wrote:Bottom line here, at least for me, is that if you consider your lineage to be a continuance of another, you list the previous as part of your history... WWE for whatever reason doesn't do this on wwe.com & why they talk about it in their "World title history DVD" is beyond me... if I were the NWA, I would have sued WWE over this & demanded to get all their NWA footage so the NWA could then make their own NWA history series... which as of now they can't... I would also negotiate with TNA to at least share their footage of NWA history...

The NWA can't sue because it never owned any of that footage in the first place! The NWA never owned anything. It was all the various promotions. I'm not even sure that the NWA currently is or ever was an actual legal entity.

And why should TNA share with the NWA? The NWA tried to screw them over. They stripped TNA's champions and demanded the belts THE MORNING OF A PPV.

Big Red Machine wrote:

badnewzxl wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:

3. For both the WWE Title and the AWA World Title, they don't mention it because they don't need to. Those belts have (or in the case of the AWA, had) the prestige to stand on their own without needing to remind us of the whole entire title lineage. You can see the same thing in TNA, which is the exact same situation as WWE (the NWA made a decision regarding titles that TNA didn't like, so TNA gave their champs new belts with new names).

what was said decision the NWA made? I always thought TNA's break from NWA was similar to that of WCW's. I thought TNA was just deciding that since they were so big, it was time to carve their own niche without the NWA's name attached. I remember 'Good Times, Great Memories' was the last time for a while that guys who wrestled for TNA were allowed to wrestle in ROH; that was Aries, Daniels, and Homicide's last match in ROH for a while. I figured it was all about TNA wishing to preserve their roster (also, ROH had announced they'd begin having PPV's that year; I thought TNA didn't want "their" talent being featured on another promotion's PPV), not anything involving the NWA....

TNA broke away from the NWA in 2004 because they realized that they didn't need the NWA name (exactly like WCW), but the NWA still let them use the belts because the NWA realized that it needed TNA to stay relevant. The NWA eventually realized that it probably wasn't such a good idea to have a non-member in complete and total control of the booking of their top titles, so, in 2007, they stripped the TNA Champs of their belts. The thing with the ROH happened because ROH got its PPV deal. That had nothing to do with the NWA.

That's what's weird to me: if TNA realized they didn't need the NWA name, why did they hold on to the titles? That's basically saying they DO need the NWA name.

My question to you BRM, had to do with what you said about the reason TNA left the NWA. You said they did so bc NWA made a decision about the belts that TNA didn't like, so they created their own titles. They explanation you just gave says the exact opposite. I'm a bit confused....

badnewzxl wrote:

Big Red Machine wrote:

badnewzxl wrote:
what was said decision the NWA made? I always thought TNA's break from NWA was similar to that of WCW's. I thought TNA was just deciding that since they were so big, it was time to carve their own niche without the NWA's name attached. I remember 'Good Times, Great Memories' was the last time for a while that guys who wrestled for TNA were allowed to wrestle in ROH; that was Aries, Daniels, and Homicide's last match in ROH for a while. I figured it was all about TNA wishing to preserve their roster (also, ROH had announced they'd begin having PPV's that year; I thought TNA didn't want "their" talent being featured on another promotion's PPV), not anything involving the NWA....

TNA broke away from the NWA in 2004 because they realized that they didn't need the NWA name (exactly like WCW), but the NWA still let them use the belts because the NWA realized that it needed TNA to stay relevant. The NWA eventually realized that it probably wasn't such a good idea to have a non-member in complete and total control of the booking of their top titles, so, in 2007, they stripped the TNA Champs of their belts. The thing with the ROH happened because ROH got its PPV deal. That had nothing to do with the NWA.

That's what's weird to me: if TNA realized they didn't need the NWA name, why did they hold on to the titles? That's basically saying they DO need the NWA name.

My question to you BRM, had to do with what you said about the reason TNA left the NWA. You said they did so bc NWA made a decision about the belts that TNA didn't like, so they created their own titles. They explanation you just gave says the exact opposite. I'm a bit confused....

TNA withdrew from the NWA (i.e. they stopped being NWA:TNA and because just TNA Wrestling) because they felt that they didn't need the NWA name/brand anymore. They held onto the belts because the NWA let them (stupid of the NWA, IMO), and because buying your own belts is expensive. This was a cost-saving measure for TNA.